Future Boeing Access Road Station moves to East Marginal Way

118 Replies to “Future Boeing Access Road Station moves to East Marginal Way”

1. “Route 124 runs along Tukwila International Boulevard and riders would have to walk about 1,000 feet along South 112th Street to reach the new infill station.”

   So much for a good transfer to the Museum of Flight, Aviation High School, or the emerging village at 144th that the City of Tukwila cited as reasons for the station. The western avenues of Manhatten are 900 feet apart, and that’s widely seen as too long and takes ten minutes to walk one avenue. But Manhattan has frequent buses on the cross streets. This will be even further, and have nothing to help bridge the extraordinarily bad transfer gap, like a moving sidewalk.

   Notice a pattern: Bad transfers at Midtown2, CID2, Bellevue Downtown, Overlake Village, and BAR stations. That’s, um, five strikes.

   1. Tacoma Dome (T Line transfers) makes it seven.

   2. SODO too.

      Up to 8.

      And that doesn’t even count the hassle of making elevation changes at other places like UW and West Seattle and even Lynnwood City Center when transferring to buses.

   3. Metro could also reroute the 124 on 112th and Marginal Way past the station. It’s only two more turns due to the design of the Marginal Way – Tukwila Int’l Blvd intersection. I think that’d be a good thing if the station is built there.

      1. Or the 124 could continue south on Marginal Way past 112th all the way to 130th. That’d get service to the employers across from Metro South Base, and the employers at 116th, plus better service to several homes and avoiding the freeway interchange at Tukwila Int’l Blvd and 599. In fact, it might be a good rerouting even without the station?

         Though, it would increase travel time a bit. Google Maps says it’d take two minutes longer.

      2. I was thinking that Metro 150 to/ from the south could continue up Interurban Ave past the station, and hop on I-5 at Boeing Access Road. It would a fabulous RapidRide route!

      3. Yeah, I was thinking the 124 would be modified fairly easily. It could turn on South 112th. It is not a 90 degree turn which is a concern (sometimes a right turn is too sharp ). But I think it would be OK as the lanes are wide and there is a bike lane next to where the bus would turn. I think the main thing you would want to add is a stop sign on East Marginal Way and 112th.

         It could turn further south (at 130th) but that would mean losing an existing bus stop (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Gmgef2vH279kP56b7). The stop gets about 45 riders a day (which is pretty good for that section).

   4. Even if it was a good transfer to/from the 124, it seems like kind of a pointless one. Depending on whether you’re coming from the south or the north, you can transfer to the same route 124 at either TIBS or downtown Seattle. Riding Link to BAR and transferring there does nothing to make the trip any faster, so what’s the point?

      Even going from Rainier Valley to the museum of flight (best case for such a transfer, although a very niche trip), it’s not that much faster than riding Link to either SODO or TIBS and transferring there. It would be one thing if the train offered a one seat ride, but you still have to pay the transfer penalty anyway, it’s just slightly less time on the bus.

      What’s left is, of course, the park and ride users, with essentially the entire cost of adding a new station being about squeezing in 300 more parking spaces for the train into the Tukwila area. If that’s the case, the cost per additional parking space (treating the cost of the new station as part of the cost of the parking, which it effectively is) seems actually worse than simply converting the surface lot at TIBS into a garage (which is also very poor value, but seems not as bad as this). And at least the “more parking at TIBS” option doesn’t slow the train down for everyone else.

      Unlike Graham station which trades longer travel times for access to more destinations, BAR station is just longer travel times so that 300 more people from Tukwila can find parking. That’s it.

      1. Yeah, I think that is the bigger concern. I’m looking at the ridership for the 124 and I noticed a few things. There are way more riders along Tukwila International Boulevard (even if you don’t count the station) then there are on East Marginal Way. Along Tukwila International Boulevard the ridership gets smaller as go south. The library gets over 200 riders (split evenly each direction). This is the “emerging village” Mike mentioned. The next stop to the south gets about 125 (again split fairly evenly). After that though, ridership is very low until you get to Airport Way in Georgetown. The only exception is the museum, but it only gets about 75 riders, mostly people heading south. That means very few people are taking Link to TIBS and then the 124 to museum. This would over save ten minutes — mostly by avoiding backtracking — but that might not matter (the bus is fairly fast).

         In other words the area with the most ridership is the area fairly close to TIBS (or very far away to the south). Of course some riders would benefit — just not a lot. Of course things could change. Some of the areas close to the station could be developed. Even that is challenging though. It is an industrial area with lots of natural and man made barriers. In general the more stations the better but it is hard to be really optimistic about this one.

      2. Isn’t the idea to extend RapidRide A here and terminate Route 124 here as a trade of service hours? That could add some riders but not many.

         If this station is to gain any ridership, more bus routes are going to have to reach it. There’s not enough walkable things there otherwise to add many station riders.

         I could see Metro rerouting Route 128 or Route 132 to reach the station but they aren’t high demand routes. That leaves a Route 150 rerouting as the best hope to add transferring bus riders. And if Route 150 terminated there from the south it would create the bulk of the station use.

         The only other ways to generate station ridership are with surrounding walkable land uses (good TOD) or a parking structure — which essentially points to the core problem with this station: It doesn’t really have much opportunity to attract riders.

      3. The only routes I’ve heard as hypothetically serving there are the A, 124, 150, 101, and all the freeway expresses from the south. Metro is considering truncating RapidRide 150 at Rainier Beach via BAR, although right now it’s leaning toward continuing to downtown. Metro Connects 2050 turns the 124 into a kind of 124/107 route (south to BAR, east to 56th, meandering to the future Renton P&R). In that scenario the 124 would no longer serve TIB.

2. “Sound Transit staff indicated a straight section of track was the key determiner for where station can be sited.”

   I wish ST and STB contributors would pay more attention to this fact. It’s very hard and much more expensive and disruptive to build an infill station without a straight track.

   ST’s current de facto design strategy is to disregard any need for straight track unless a station platform is already proposed. This statement in the presentation essentially declares how that hands-off approach is a mistake.

   In developing designs for every future extension not yet under construction — Tacoma Dome, West Seattle, Everett, 4 Line, it seems easy/ low effort and necessary to scan each corridor for how much of the trackway is suitable for an infill station. Even if there is no current plan to add one, it’s still important to know. Ideally,

   ST should first create a simple map with “straight track zones” that could theoretically be suitable for adding an infill station in the distant future.

   And if plans ongoing in these corridors can be easily adjusted to provide more straight track possibilities without adding substantial cost, these adjustments should be made before final design.

   1. If ST adds infill stations beyond those in ST3, it will also have to renumber the stations. That would throw off tourist guidebooks that say a destination is at such-and-such station.

      1. Renumbering is probably the worst excuse possible for not adding an infill station.

         It takes at least 10 years to conceive, plan, fund, build and open an infill station. That’s plenty of time to transition the numbering.

      2. There are still plenty of resources saying to take Metro 194 from the airport. That’s been more than 10 years

      3. I was going to suggest making it be “161 1/2”; however, I just looked at the numbering, and Rainier Beach is 161 while TIBS is 163, so the infill station would just be 162.

3. With the planning documents calling this the “Boring Access Road Station”, should ST go ahead and choose a different name for the proposed project at this point? It’s sure to add confusion until they do.

   Some options:
   Allentown
   Duwamish Crossing
   North Tukwila

   Note too that BAR is not a shopping street, but is instead a short road (just over a half-mile) build to connect an I-5 interchange.

   1. ST intends to spend a great deal of time soliciting community feedback about the station siting, design, and access. This includes settling on a permanent name for the station

      1. I missed that. Good for ST staff to jump on this name issue whether than wait so long like they have done recently.

   2. ST always chooses a permanent station name later in the process. It’s not saying it will do it earlier than usual; it’s just saying it will do it in case people don’t know the usual station process.

4. Without meaningful shuttles from BAR station to Boeing and the Museum of Flight, this station is pointless. Even with the shuttles. this may end up being the least used station in the entire system. No housing, no retail or a few employers who are doing just fine without transit. Even if there are shuttles, they would have to be privately operated, just as Boeing currently does in Everett to Seaway TC. And the ridership at Seaway is dismal as it is. This project is a boondoggle.

   1. We’ve always been scratching our heads wondering why this station, and why put money into it that could go to something else. We’ve never gotten a convincing answer. Just that Tukwila wants it, P&R drivers want it, it might get some express bus truncations or local bus reroutes, or people might transfer between Sounder and Link. But when you ask WHICH bus routes, WHICH Sounder trip pairs, wouldn’t a bus transfer add 10 minutes to travel time, there’s no clear answer, or there’s wild speculation that Metro might truncate the 101 there, or that it must be good for something because people want it.

      1. 10 minutes is an understatement.

         Best case scenario for 577 from Federal Way to Westlake is 30 minutes.
         Link from Rainier Beach to Westlake is 25.
         FW to Boeing Access Road best case is 18 minutes. So that’s 13 extra minutes plus the transfer penalty.

         I’m sure the math looks better when I-5 isn’t moving

      2. I wonder how many P&R drivers actually want it. It just seems that most of them would want to park much further south. There may be some people from the Rainier Beach or White Center area who want to use it, but even then, you’re going out of your way on some slow roads with extra turns, so you might as well just drive to your destination? I guess Sound Transit has to build it because they promised it, but no need to make it be a stand alone surface lot. They could easily build a mixed use housing/retail complex and incorporate the parking in that, like Thornton Place at Northgate.

      3. I wonder how many P&R drivers actually want it

         All of them on game day

      4. “10 minutes is an understatement.”

         I was just counting the addition north of BAR: i.e., going east to Rainier Beach, west at Beacon Hill, and surface on MLK and SODO. That would seem to add 10-12 minutes to the 150 or 101 plus transfer time. The express bus segments south of BAR could remain as is because the buses are still on I-5.

      5. Extending the A from TIBS to BAR, dropping the detour loop through TIBS station, and upgrading stations along T Int’l Blvds to RR station would be a strong improvement for transit connectivity for Tukwilla. This moves the forced A/124 transfer from TIBS to BAR.

         That corridor ( the full length of Tukwila International Blvd from Marginal Way to SR518) should have been served directly by Link, but early in the Sound Move planning ST pivoted to the cheaper & slower option of following the freeways. Adding this station and converting the 124 segment to RR upgrades that corridor to what it should have been when Link first opened.

         They should drop the parking component of the project. Include bus facilities for the RR-A terminus and a few spots for kiss & ride. Like I said in the open thread, the station is successful only if there is a new neighborhood within the station walkshed.

      6. I’m not so sure. BAR has a connection only to Link. TIBS also offers a connection to the F-line, plus future STRIDE line to Burien and Bellevue, which BAR, for sure, won’t. So, shifting the forced transfer point to BAR adds an additional forced transfer for some to connect to these other services. Such a change would also cost service money, as the A-line runs more frequently than the 124 does. That would mean cutting frequency on either this route or some other route to pay for it.

         I would also be willing to bet that the A-line, in practice, continues to detour into TIBS, even if it did get extended to BAR, simply for reasons of inertia, connection to other bus routes, and the city of Tukwila not being cooperative in getting a bus stop placed on the street (half the purpose of the TIBS detour to prevent the buses from delaying Tukwila’s precious car traffic when they load and unload passengers, and to prevent turning cars from having to bother stop for pedestrians crossing the street to access the station).

      7. Yeah, I agree with asdf2. The detour to TIBS is fairly minor and will happen either way. It is a shorter trip to Link for a lot of people. I could see the A being extended but that would leave two options:

         1) Just overlap. This costs money.
         2) Truncate the 124 at BAR. The problem is, this would force a lot of transfers. It would mean someone transferring from the Stride or F Line would have to take the A and then transfer a third time to the 124 to get to Georgetown.

         My guess is they would just overlap. But it isn’t clear how far they would overlap. There really isn’t much as you get close to BAR. It would probably make sense to minimize the cost and just overlap to around 140th. At that point you are still a little closer to TIBS than BAR. By overlapping you create a little spine between there are TIBS (with the 124, 128 and RapidRide A). This is where most of the riders are, so it would be a good match.

      8. The plan to extend the A was never made in reference to service hour tradeoffs. It would be sometime in the distant future when the available hours were unknown, there may be other restructures in between, and King County might have passed its Metro Connects levy it still hasn’t gotten around to. In any case, hours could come from truncating express buses. I think that was the reasoning.

      9. “Such a change would also cost service money, as the A-line runs more frequently than the 124 does. ” That’s my point – with a station at Marginal Way, the TIB bus corridor merits better frequency.

         But fair counter that TIBS is a more important transfer point and therefore a more logical forced transfer.

      10. That’s my point – with a station at Marginal Way, the TIB bus corridor merits better frequency.

          My point is that it doesn’t really change things. TIBS is still closer to the vast majority of riders. It is the direction most people will head if they want to use Link. By the time you are clearly closer to BAR you are in a land with very few riders. Consider the stops along Tukwila Boulevard. Here are the boardings for a bus headed to Seattle:

          152nd St — 75
          148th St — 30
          144th St — 109
          141st St — 76
          37th Ave S — 11
          S 130th St — 23
          SR 99 Ramp — 34
          S 112th St — 22

          As you can see, ridership really drops off as you get south of 141st. Keep in mind, these are for riders heading south — which means they are not going to Link. If anything you would expect the numbers to be going up as you get closer to Seattle but it is the opposite. When it comes to the an extension of the RapidRide A, TIBS is more or less irrelevant. Sure, a handful of people would have a shorter trip to Link but it would probably make more sense to just end the A Line at 141st.

          Put it another way. If we were building Link right now it would make sense to have the line go east of the freeway and hook up to Tukwila Boulevard (instead of hugging the freeway). But the only station that really makes sense* would be the 141st/144th area. There is really nothing else along the corridor to the south until you get to Georgetown*. That means the only additional station would be less a mile away from TIBS. It is the only area with significant development. That isn’t likely to change. The area right next to the station is industrial and areas a mile away aren’t likely to suddenly get developed. Furthermore, many of the areas can’t get developed (they are greenbelt, a river, railroad tracks, etc.). I’m not saying there won’t be some development — I’m just saying it will be minimal.

          *The only other reason to build a station is to try and improve multi-modal transportation. Specifically Sounder/Link and Link/Express bus. Neither will happen with this station.

   2. I don’t see such shuttles operating because ridership would be too low to justify paying for it. The flight museum is not going to increase the admission fee for everyone else in order to fund a shuttle that very few people would use. King County Metro already provides the 124, which is better for people coming from downtown anyway.

      1. Yeah, I don’t see them running a shuttle. Yet without the shuttle I don’t think they will get many tourists. This will be nice for the folks that work there (there is that) but the vast majority of riders head south (not north) from the museum. In other words they take the 124 from downtown (or some place along the way) despite the connection to TIBS. This station will make it a lot closer but I’m not sure it will end up making that much difference.

         I think folks are really grasping at straws when they mention the museum. Don’t get me wrong — it is a nice museum. It is reasonably popular. But no one mentions the Museum of History and Industry when discussing South Lake Union (there is no need to). The Museum of Flight isn’t that close and it isn’t that popular.

      2. “But no one mentions the Museum of History and Industry when discussing South Lake Union”

         Actually they do. Mayor Jenny Durkan’s vision of the CC streetcar was that tourists at Pike Place Market would take it to MOHAI and Little Saigon.

      3. And that has worked out just great [snark].

      4. Yeah I would see the Museum simply advertising the 124 more.

5. It sure would be nice if we had leadership at Sound Transit that would push back against this kind of waste of money and save money for projects where spending more actually produces better service.

   Instead, we get Dow Constantine, who doesn’t have a great history of picking worthwhile light rail investments.

   1. Dow isn’t picking this station. The voters did

      1. The voters didn’t pick this. It was simply one of a several dozen projects in ST3. They had to either accept it or all or get nothing. It is quite likely that those voters that actually knew about everything in the package — which was probably a minority of those that supported ST3 — voted for it knowing full well this project was dubious (but decided it was worth it for everything else).

      2. It was in the representative alignment in the ballot measure. Shifting Midtown2 station to James Street, CID2 to Dearborn Street, Ballard to 14th, and making DSTT2 ultra-deep with 7-minute transfers, were nowhere in the ballot measure and were never mentioned as possibilities. If they had been, ST3 would have gotten more opposition and it might not have passed.

6. So just to back up here, there are several potential ways of getting to this station:

   1) Sounder. This looks to be dead. Too bad since this seemed like it had the most potential. I’m thinking Rainier Valley to Kent, Auburn, etc.
   2) Freeway express buses. Likely also dead. You would need to build ramps (not just a freeway station) if you wanted buses like the 101 to stop here (on the way to downtown).
   3) Walk-up ridership from existing development. Minimal.
   4) Future TOD. Fairly limited. It is on a tiny peninsula that is industrial. Some of the industrial places are already developed (like the multi-story U-Haul storage building) leaving very little realistic potential development.
   5) Bike connections. There is a bike path nearby — I think the bigger problem is that there isn’t anyplace nearby to bike to. It isn’t like UW Station where someone can hop on a bike and get the other end of campus quickly. (As it is I don’t think we get that many bike/transit riders even with the best of connections.)
   6) Local bus connections. This is where it gets interesting. The 124 could be diverted which would be a good first step. As mentioned up above, it is hard to see that leading to that many riders — as the bulk of the riders of the 124 are either close to TIBS or much further south (Georgetown). Of course buses can be restructured. Right now I-5 forms a transit barrier between 405 and Georgetown. This leads to trips that are time consuming three-seat rides even though they would be a quick drive: https://maps.app.goo.gl/LiJ85GK5fDtywXdR8. Note that I put in noon — thus that trip takes about an hour even though it would take 12 minutes by car.

   There are a couple ways of solving that problem. One is via a cross-town bus. It is likely such a bus would start at Rainier Beach (the neighborhood, not the station) since that is the biggest destination to the east (and has existing layover). Then it would run by the station and then head over BAR and continue to either Burien or White Center. Of course this would cost quite a bit of money (if it ran every fifteen minutes) and not be very valuable if it ran every half hour (since it wouldn’t really be a coverage bus — more of a shortcut bus).

   Another, cheaper alternative would for buses to weave. This gets a little tricky (and might not be worth it) but the 107 from Renton could turn west on South Ryan Way and then go over BAR before taking over the 124 north of there. The 124 (from Tukwila) could do the opposite and head to Rainier Beach (via BAR, Ryan and 51st) before continuing to Beacon Hill.

   The problem is that the station would be in the wrong place for the weave. Riders would have to walk about ten minutes to get to the bus doing this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/WZgMnarXVKtwqTRV9. A crosstown bus would work but here is the kicker: It would work right now. A crosstown bus would connect to Rainier Beach Station just as well as it would BAR. The only difference is that it would get those riders on Link a couple minutes earlier. That is nice, but I don’t think it really changes the dynamics of the route. I don’t think Metro will suddenly shift service (from areas in dire need of it) just because riders from the east would get to Link a little bit sooner. Either the crosstown bus is worth it or it isn’t.

   I don’t want to completely dismiss the value of any station. But it seems quite possible that for $267 million you could run a crosstown bus. In other words, the station won’t cause Metro to make any major restructures — nor will it lead to that many riders making two-seat rides involving a bus and Link. What the area really needs is money for buses to the Link stations that already exist (and the various neighborhoods along the way).

   1. I forgot to mention the 150. This was Al’s suggestion and it probably has the most potential. The 150 could be modified to stay on Interurban Avenue a little longer until it went past the station and then got on the freeway via BAR. This again shows that BAR is at the very least comparable when it comes to accessing via buses, if not better. Unless the bus intercepts are really bad (and only the 124 connects to it).

      It is also worth noting that a limited-stop express overlay (for the 150) might get more riders. Ridership on the 150 is quite stratified. Express overlays are generally not a good value but a quarter billion will pay for a lot of poor-value routes.

      1. “Express overlays are generally not a good value”

         When a non-express version reaches 40+ minutes travel time, not having an express overlay deters some riders and makes transit infeasible for some trips, especially for people with several errands to do who don’t have time to spend 2-4 hours a day on transit. The 150 takes a whole hour to reach Kent Station, and most Kent residents have to travel further to East Hill or beyond.

      2. Yeah, it is just that express overlays are expensive. You are covering the corridor with two routes. They tend to make the most sense during peak. This is typically when you have enough demand to justify the long-distance trips and when the main route is so full that you are running the bus often because of crowding. For example the 15 and 18*. Otherwise an express overlay tends to cannibalize itself or the system in general. You run the main route less often just so that a relatively small number of riders get there faster. It is typically a better value to just have decent stop spacing (and things like off-board payment and BAT lanes to speed up the buses).

         But a quarter billion is a lot of money and will pay for a lot of express service. I think the first thing I would do is ask ST to just run an express from Kent to Seattle. It is actually kind of weird that they don’t have that now. There are express buses from Auburn, Sumner, Puyallup and Federal Way but not Kent. The Kent Station stop gets a lot of rides on the 150 (way more than any other stop). A Puyallup/Sumner/Auburn/Kent bus would get decent ridership (for ST Express).

         Having the 150 connect to Link (at TIBS) would provide value. It would make getting to Rainier Valley faster for plenty of riders. But it would also delay those on the bus who are headed downtown. More than anything though, it doesn’t seem like it would help that many riders. Greater Tukwila is an awkward place when it comes to transit (which explains the awkward RapidRide F). The station could help make it a bit less awkward but I don’t think it would be a major improvement in the network (from what I can tell).

         *The 15 and 18 aren’t running now because of the driver shortage and the relative lack of peak ridership. But if any peak-express bus should be resurrected it should be the

      3. What we should do is run both the local and express frequently, so that people have a real choice. Then some people on the local would switch to the express. The governments should make sure there’s enough service hours for both rather than pitting one against the other. Otherwise you’re just harming some riders to serve other riders.

      4. “But it would also delay those on the bus who are headed downtown.”

         It’s not just people going downtown. It’s also people going through downtown to North Seattle, Uptown, the Eastside, West Seattle, etc. That’s where the total travel time becomes even more critical. If you have to spend an extra 30 minutes because there’s no express, that’s an extra hour for one round trip.

   2. While there are better uses with the money, the funding does come from South King. What other things could ST spend the resources on?

      More parking for Sounder?
      An infill Link station somewhere else?
      Better Stride stop at TIBS?
      A Stride Stop at Southcenter?
      Express service in the 167 corridor?

      Of course,, DSTT2 gets funds from South King so contributing to that is an option — though not sexy.

      1. What about building the infill station here instead https://maps.app.goo.gl/9cv9TjefdsV32uDf9?g_st=com.google.maps.preview.copy

      2. Among other things, $200 million could eliminate one of the worst crossings on ML King, which would benefit north and south King subareas.

         It won’t fly, but it’s something that would be of better value.

      3. Just build a garage at TIBS. Most of this station’s ridership will be Tukwilla drivers anyway, and they will get similar utility for much less disruption to link operations.

      4. Wesley – I had a simillar thought, but typically land lot industrial land is easier to rezone and densify than small lot residential. Frankly, no reason Tukwila cannot have the same stop spacing as the Rainer Valley, with infill stations at 144th and 133/Gateway to go alongside the Marginal Way station.

         Al – I’d rather see South King invest in Southcenter, as that is a biggest node not well served currently. For example, a Stride station and/or HOV ramps at 405 & Andover Park W, with the RR-F evolving into a local shadow rather than the keystone route.

      5. typically land lot industrial land is easier to rezone and densify than small lot residential.

         Is it? I would think the opposite. Quite often the business owner has invested quite a bit in the property. Other times the land has toxins and requires a lot of work before you can build anything. There are exceptions of course. I can see why SoDo land could be developed, just because it is so close to downtown. But Tukwila is not. I don’t see this land as being particularly attractive just because it has a Link station nearby. To be clear, the river is nice, but the airport is nearby as are major roadways. Even from a transit perspective isn’t that great. If you are headed downtown there are other places in Tukwila that are comparable that also remain industrial (https://maps.app.goo.gl/y2XG5f5nowbFs3wu5). The main benefit, really, is the connection to Rainier Valley (or maybe the airport). That is nice, but it is hard to see that attracting that much pressure to develop the area.

         The only reason I could see development here is basically if Tukwila — and the other cities — essentially steer development here. If this is the only place in the region where they allow apartments then of course they would build them here. But even within Tukwila that doesn’t appear to be the case. I wouldn’t bet on significant TOD here.

      6. What about building the infill station here instead https://maps.app.goo.gl/9cv9TjefdsV32uDf9?g_st=com.google.maps.preview.copy

         That would be better, definitely. It is not an obvious “slam-dunk” but it has potential. You would still have minimal walk-up ridership but you would still have more than the BAR station. The 128 could avoid the back and forth to TIBS.

         But there is a hitch. Right now the 128 runs on Macadam road after it crosses the freeway on South 144th. The problem is, it pretty much has to. This is more or less where you would want the bus to go: https://maps.app.goo.gl/PvYa3Q3nKaTJbt2K8. But you can’t go that way. The road doesn’t go through and you end up going all the way back to 144th and Macadam (https://maps.app.goo.gl/iBbwqfxHdkWvJTSR8). This makes for a very poor bus ride. Thus even if got TOD in the neighborhood east of the station it would not be easy to serve. You are left with the apartments along Macadam Road. This is something, just not a lot. To be clear it would be much better than what they have proposed, just not great.

         I really think the station with the most potential is the one they rejected. Make the connection to Sounder and the freeway express bus (the 101) and this is a worthy station. You would change regional mobility dramatically. It is really bizarre that we seem fixated on regional rail mobility (light rail to the Tacoma Dome and Everett!) but seem disinterested in making a key regional connection.

      7. What other things could ST spend the resources on?

         ST Express buses, for sure. To be fair, Federal Way Link will save ST a fair amount of money even if they continue to run a lot of the buses to downtown (which I hope they do). You save a lot by not having to run the 574 to SeaTac (when Link is running).

         But imagine this schedule (off-peak, when Sounder is *not* running):

         1) Tacoma Dome/Puyallup/Sumner/Auburn/Kent/Downtown-Seattle express bus every fifteen minutes. Thus riders at every one of those train stations have a midday alternative for every trip combination except those involving Tukwila.

         2) Dupont/Lakewood/Tacoma/Federal Way/Downtown Seattle express every fifteen minutes. Same idea.

         I would run this all day (including during peak):

         3) Puyallup/Sumner/Auburn/Federal Way every fifteen minutes. This is basically the 578 truncated at Federal Way. No reason to continue to downtown given the other buses (or sounder during peak).

         I’m not sure if you need much more in terms of expresses. Tukwila (Sounder) Station is at an awkward place for buses. The F already serves it — connecting to Link as well as the 150. The 150 is basically an express with a long tail. From Kent it is slow. From Tukwila it isn’t. The 101 is an express as well. Burien could use an all-day express. I think it had a peak-only express at one point, but that went away (I forget what it was).

         For something a little different, consider this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/2jWLBqiRYDv29Z5W7

         This wouldn’t make as many stops as a Metro bus. It would basically poach the biggest ridership stops for the buses it overlaps as well as making a stop for each connection. Staring at the Fred Meyer in Benson Center you would stop at Valley Medical Center, East Valley Highway, 180th & Sperry, Tukwila Transit Center and Downtown Seattle. That’s it. OK, maybe another stop or two, but not many. It would offer a significant speed improvement for plenty of riders and it would provide good east-west service (that is also provided by the 906, just not that often).

      8. “ST Express buses, for sure.”
         We don’t have enough operators to make that a reality and unfortunately PT & KCM aren’t hiring enough people to make more express bus service a reality when they are already struggling to fill driver slots for local bus service. It’d be a different conversation if Sound Transit had their own in house team of operators for just STs operations, but unfortunately they don’t.

      9. This isn’t true anymore for Pierce Transit. They have plenty of bus drivers. In fact, my the current drivers are complaining because they lost their OT opportunities.

         What they are lacking now is mechanics.

      10. I’m also thinking long term. The driver shortage (which was an international phenomenon) was due to the pandemic recovery. It will eventually wane (and based on Cam’s statement that is already happening). It will take years before they decide to spend the money to start building this — they could definitely have buses up and running before then.

      11. You could build a gondola from TIBS to South Center and Sounder Station.

   3. A Sounder Station here is dead

   4. I think your point 1 – Sounder/Link interchange – would have been the best use of any station in this area *assuming* ST for once thought outside the box and, also for once, thought in terms of network and connections. They are frankly horrible about this (Metro’s not a lot better, but still at least seem to consider potential opportunities).

      Thinking outside the box would be this: don’t terminate Sounder trains from either direction at King Street. Extend Sounder North to Renton (at least downtown, where there is potential layover track at the old station; the Landing if feasible to have street running). Trackage to Renton is used for Boeing but not much else; the ROW is mostly grade-separated to downtown Renton except over quiet Monster Road. Extend Sounder South to a future Link interchange at Smith Cove, or as far as Shilshole; both of which appear to have potential layover space as well. I’d also add an infill station at Belltown because this extremely dense neighborhood is woefully underserved by anything high-capacity at all – and always will be.

      What this does is provide extra Sounder runs between Smith Cove (or Shilshole) and a BAR interchange station; gives several more destination pairs to North Sounder that might potentially increase its woeful ridership; gives Ballard (and Belltown) at least a stop-gap with rail service to both ends of downtown and the airport, and gives people in the Valley better service – much in some cases – to LQA, SLU, and Ballard, as well as to the airport via Link transfer if desired; easier with luggage than a bus. Terminating North Sounder at Renton also provides direct service from that city into Seattle and gives a secondary destination from people in the north (and hey, Mukilteo – BAR – Renton is now the Boeing line!) ;-)

      This would have made more sense if all of these new destination pairs had a direct connection at the BAR station to Link/the airport, but we don’t do “sense” as far as connections go in this region.

      Barring all of that (and I still think overlapping Sounder lines would be beneficial without a Link connection, just less so), why a station that serves a tiny industrial peninsula instead of a station further south at Gateway Drive/S 133rd Street, where there is a decent amount of office space as well as some residential, with the potential for more, and a potential connection between any bus routes on 599 or Interurban and Link?

7. This is the perfect place to put a obe-traffic light bus intercept.

   Build a two-way ramp from East Marginal Way down to SR599 taking the left lane each way between I-5 and East Marginal, widen the East Marginal Bridge halfway across SR598 by a lane in each direction, then build a ramp from the northbound HOV lane to the northbound SR599 bridge joining just wesy of southbound I-5. Give the buses priority at East Marginal and Interurban and you have a one stop path from SR-518 and any street north of it with an HOV ramp to Link. Southbound already has HOV access.

   You could probably squeeze a bus stop for SouthCenter in the HOV belly to I-5.

   1. SR-518 should be SR-167

8. Ideally, this should have been a joint announcement between ST and the City of Tukwila, with ST announcing the station location, and Tukwila unveiling plans for a reimagined station area. Granted, the area may never be able to transform on the scale of a Spring District and BelRed due to geographical, and other limitations, but I could one day see a smaller transformation, like the Marymoor Village. Given the right zoning changes and incentives, a limited or piecemeal transformation is very doable.

   Also, let the record show that I am the first one to suggest the station name Allentown Village Station.

   1. It’s an industrial district. A village would displace blue-collar jobs. It was never Tukwila’s intention to convert the area from industrial. See SODO station in Seattle. But while SODO has walk-up workers and shoppers and a street grid, it’s hard to see any of that here. So we can just say Tukwila’s vision of and need for the station was pie-in-the-sky delusional.

      1. Yeah, the area close to the station is industrial and even if you rezoned it some of the buildings would stay. It is also a pretty small peninsula with plenty of land that can’t be developed. You can’t access the station from the east (because of the railroad tracks and freeway). To go west you have to cross a bridge and soon get into golf courses and greenbelt. To the north it gets very narrow and then is all Boeing property. That doesn’t leave much. Sam mentioned Allentown and I could see that area being developed. But that is a long walk from the station (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Ufxjfw6wgg9ZjUPw8). So now you are running a brand new bus to serve that area. But if you are going to run brand new buses then you might as well run them to a real, existing neighborhood with plenty of real, existing ridership — Rainier Beach. A bus like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/d5Gdaz6K46ZjxsBT8 would get more riders than this station would.

         The problem is, the station is a poor substitute for crossing buses like that and yet is no more likely to happen with it. Ultimately Metro the most important thing for the area is more money so Metro can afford to run buses like that (along with the other routes).

      2. You think the Seattle Police Athletic Association and a U-Haul storage facility are a source of blue collar jobs? Let’s not worship at the altar of industrial zoning – the region desperately needs more midrise neighborhoods directly served by Link, not a few more acres of low density industrial use that could just as easily be in Frederickson or Arlington. There is no business south of BAR and north of 115th that is leveraging proximity to airport or railroad.

         This is riverfront right on the Green River trail, with several existing parks. I see no reason why it wouldn’t be a desirable place to live, work, and play.

      3. @Al
         “This is riverfront right on the Green River trail, with several existing parks. I see no reason why it wouldn’t be a desirable place to live, work, and play.”
         I actually looked at a room for rent in the section of allentown between the river and Interurban Ave S, about 1/2 mile south of this station.

         It was incredibly loud. The din of traffic from I-5 and highway 599 was unceasing. Every minute or two I cars would race by on Interurban Ave (which is effectively a highway speed road even though speed limits are lower. Also about every couple minutes I heard the sound of passenger jets taking/landing at SeaTac. Even though I was there less than an hour, I also heard a much closer plane that sounded like it was coming from King Co airport, a freight train, and gunshots from the shooting range nearby. It was paradoxically a quaint little neighborhood and one of the noisiest places I’ve ever been.

      4. Having spent most of my time in the Seattle area living literally adjacent to I90, I am unmoved by any “it’s too loud, no one will live here” argument.

   2. Mike, your reply would make more sense if I had said something like … “Tukwila should transform the entire infill station area from industrial to residential!” But I didn’t say anything remotely close to that. It also sounds like you aren’t familiar with the station area. Not the land the station will sit on, but the entire station area. The station area is zoned: Low Density Residential, Light and Heavy Industrial, and Light and Heavy Industrial Manufacturing. It’s very plausible that over time, some zoning will be changed to allow increased density in current low density residential, and to allow residential on certain light industrial parcels. Zoning changes like that happen all the time. And changes like that are accelerated when a neighborhood gets a light rail neighborhood. Again, I’m talking about a “limited or piecemeal transformation.” I think it’s not only plausible, but inevitable.

      Here’s a zoning map of the station area. The station will be located around 112th and East Marginal Way.

      https://www.tukwilawa.gov/wp-content/uploads/Comp-Plan_Zoning-Map.pdf

      1. Your comments seem to run contrary to the map. The area close to the station is almost entirely zoned MIC/H (or Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy Industrial). There is also a LI (light industrial) section to the north. That is just about everything *within walking distance*. Consider some options:

         North: Industrial

         West: It is about a ten minute walk to get across the Duwamish: https://maps.app.goo.gl/rmXFnZQu8W1rxEYr8. At that point you are finally out of the industrial zone. But you are also next to SR-99. So you would have to build a pedestrian overpass over the highway to get to the land that is west of there (which is part of Burien I believe). A lot of that is greenbelt. I could see an apartment or two going up in there but that is still a long walk to the station. If you are headed downtown it is probably faster to just catch the 132.

         East: Industrial before you run into the railroad tracks. You can walk over BAR but that is a long walk before you get to the other side (which is also industrial).

         South: The only tiny sliver of potential new residential development. The closest spot is just east of the Note that you walk by the Duwamish Hill Preserve (a little park). It is about a ten minute walk to the closest place that can be developed: https://maps.app.goo.gl/JZ4Ry5vR6S9N3GN19. This is property that could see apartments — for sure. Continuing southeast (in search of land that can be developed) you next encounter the Fire Station (and to the east of it, BNSF land). Next you have another sliver of land surrounding 116th. By now it is well over a ten minute walk to the station. As you go further (to the main Allentown neighborhood) you have a lot more potential. But it is also a really long walk. There aren’t going to be many people who walk twenty minutes to catch Link.

         So overall you have a fairly tiny sliver of TOD potential *unless you change the industrial zoning* (which seems unlikely). My guess is, this station will not be “a game changer”. Keep in mind, the 124 is reasonably fast. Of course Link would be faster, but if you are headed downtown, not that much faster (nor that much more frequent). The main thing it would do is connect the neighborhood — and more importantly people on other buses going through the neighborhood — to Rainier Valley. Those riders would avoid having to transfer at Georgetown. But you could achieve the same thing — and probably get a lot more riders — if you just ran an east-west bus through over BAR.

      2. Ross, what’s something I said that runs contrary to the map?

      3. I suppose someone could quibble with my definition of station area, when I said low density residential is within the station area, but my definition of station area in this case is 1/2 mile. I’m not sure what the official definition of light rail station area is, but I’ve always thought it was a 1/4 to 1/2 mile radius.

      4. Ross, what’s something I said that runs contrary to the map?

         You suggested that there was significant potential for residential density *without* altering the industrial land. I just don’t see it. The amount of property zoned residential (of any sort) close to the station is minuscule. Mike was right in assuming you were suggesting that industrial land be rezoned as it is the only way to get a significant amount of TOD.

         I’m not sure what the official definition of light rail station area is, but I’ve always thought it was a 1/4 to 1/2 mile radius.

         Yes, that sounds about right. Basically five to ten minute walking distance. That is the dividing line for the vast majority of the riders. But walking distance is what matters — not the distance as the crow flies. Crows don’t ride transit. Thus the closest apartment building (as the crow flies) is actually a ridiculous distance away (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1F1fFqZUzeE644kaA). A pedestrian bridge over SR 99 would help fix that, but it would still be a ways (over fifteen minutes).

         Note: I forgot the little area across East Marginal Way. This is barely in range (https://maps.app.goo.gl/J5ZigUgR7JFwKGBcA). So if that area got developed then that would add a little ridership.

      5. Some of the things I said …

         “It’s very plausible that over time, some zoning will be changed to allow increased density in current low density residential, and to allow residential on certain light industrial parcels.”

         “Given the right zoning changes and incentives, a limited or piecemeal transformation is very doable.”

         I’m not sure what you think I’m saying. It seems like you think I’m saying that the station will be a catalyst for a dramatic station area transformation. I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying I think it’s plausible that the zoning in the residential areas might be changed to allow greater density, and, yes, I’m even saying that a couple of non-residential parcels, perhaps closer to the station, may one day be changed to residential or mixed use.

   3. The new site certainly moves the station out of the final approach zone for Boeing Field, easing height restrictions. However it’s still very close to the airport runway.

      However, much of the corridor all the way from Beacon Hill Station to Fife has very “primarily residential ” or “primarily parking structure” (drive from a residence) stations with the notable exceptions of SeaTac, KDM and Federal Way. The last two still feature large parking structures.

      With so much residential and parking along the light rail corridor, It would make sense to me to have a non-residential TOD there. It would put more activity density there that doesn’t rely in building a tall residential building because the airport runway proximity limits the height and residents would still complain about aircraft noise (there’s also rail yard noise too).

      There are many varied options on what that TOD could be — from county or state government offices to a medical center to a higher education campus to an arena to a casino (tribal claims would be needed).

      So I think Sam makes a good point that it needs a companion station area land use vision to be even remotely viable — but feel that any vision should be non-residential in focus.

9. another entire unnecessary infill that will slow down SeaTac, the second highest ridership station for meager gains in ridership and huge costs. Instead, they should invest in a Rainier Valley bypass as proposed by multiple advocates.

   1. There was a post a few years ago that tried to do the math on how much time a track through Georgetown would save. It wasn’t much.

      I would love to have a station in Georgetown, but that would more likely be a Sounder Station (still highly unlikely).

      BAR Station, if anything, will merely make a bypass track even less feasible.

      1. Dunno about that when looking at it on a map, building a wye junction there wouldn’t be difficult to do. Before or after the project.

   2. The same subarea that would benefit from a Georgetown bypass is the one who let it be deleted from ST’s long-range plan and demanded BAR station.

   3. You’ll be delayed by *checks notes* 1 minute

      I think you’ll live

10. I am not sure whether that high ridership at the Museum of Flight stop is people going to the museum, or students going to Aviation High School. The quickest way to make an educated guess is to look at times of day and days of the week for that stop.

    At any rate, I don’t see how detouring buses to BAR Station would improve travel time to/from that stop. Nor how riders on the suggested bus re-routes would be convinced to want those re-routes.

    Some 800-series Metro bus routes seem so much faster and cheaper for serving the high school.

11. Maybe King County Airport will cease being an airport shortly before this Nowhere station opens,

    Then, it can be converted to a whole bunch of TOD. And then, everyone in that TOD will bus/bike/hike/drive/Lyft south to the station to catch the train north to downtown.

    1. I haven’t heard of anyone wanting to close the airport. Doesn’t it have cargo flights and general aviation that would have no place to go since SeaTac is full? Cargo flights affect people’s ability to get goods and deliveries.

       1. Yes, Boeing Field is mostly cargo and private flights.

          There are always some activists calling for closure of airports, usually referencing some blend of noise pollution, air pollution, and (more often now) climate/CO2 emissions.

          However, the process to close an airport typically takes decades and that’s nowhere near started for BFI. The airport is still busy and with the region recently shelving efforts to build a new airport (not for lack of need but for lack of feasible candidate locations), BFI will stay open for a long time.

       2. “Yes, Boeing Field is mostly cargo and private flights.”
          It’s also the main airport for dignitaries to fly into Seattle alongside Paine Feild. Previous POTUS have flown Air Force One into there when they’ve visited. Same with foreign dignitaries like the President of China or Vietnam for example.

          Everytime a dignitary visits Seattle, I-5 ends up being shut down around Boeing Field for awhile due to security reasons.

    2. If Boeing Field closed, it would not happen quickly. Too much corporate investment in and around the airport exists — and that not only includes Boeing but also includes other investments too. So it would likely be a long (like 25-40 years) process leading to closing. The Museum if Flight may itself move or close if that happened.

       And if it closed, the area would be so valuable that a new TOD corridor with a new rail transit line would almost certainly be planned.

       So it’s a cool alternative reality to consider — but it shouldn’t be an assumption to what decides the fate of this proposed station.

    3. Boeing Field will never close. It’s too important for the rich and powerful who fly around in private jets.

12. “ST staff noted the original station location was evaluated in the Central Link Final Environmental Impact Study in 1999 so they will need to work with the Federal Transit Administration to determine what additional environmental reviews are needed. ”

    It’s an interesting procedural point. At the very least it would seem to need a supplemental EIS to update the findings since so much has changed (definition of impacts; measuring tools; new types of impact analysis) since the late 1990’s. That’s especially true if the station site moves to this new location.

    Sadly, the whole concept of “environmental impact” is under assault nationally. We could be returning to a situation like in the 1950’s when those in power can simply disregard how destructive and useless their public projects can be. The whole concept or application of NEPA could be in jeopardy.

    1. Why would it need additional federal reviews? Do the original Link grants require reviews if the alignment is modified with in N years of opening? Or is it for a future BAR station grant? If ST is not seeking a federal grant for BAR, I don’t see why it would need a federal environment review. But then, both federal grants and federal environment reviews may be going away.

       1. I haven’t read it but I assume original Central Link EIS assumed a station located at the original BAR location, not the new location. Since the FTA has the responsibility of deciding whether or not all new public transit facilities in the USA have fulfilled the requirements of NEPA, ST staff need to get the FTA to tell them what still applies from the original EIS versus what they need to do for the new location.

          EISs aren’t done just for grants; work in the USA is required to comply with NEPA, and all work in Washington is required to comply with our SEPA. Of course, there are logical exemptions, but when ST goes to get construction permits from Tukwila and King County, they will need to demonstrate compliance with both, and the FTA’s “Record of Decision” is the decider.

       2. NEPA became law in 1970. The EIS likely began in 1997, so that’s 27 years. That was 28 years ago. More time has passed between the law’s passage and the EIS preparation beginning that from that latter date and today. And keep in mind that ST is still a few years out from dealing with the EIS compatibility aspect of this project plus this is a new preferred site.

          There have been so many new rules and analyses established since 1997 — not to mention changes in baseline assumptions about things like emissions and ecosystems. The possible impacts identified and analyzed in 1997 would still appear to need to be reassessed. ST may be able to shorten the calendar a bit procedurally but (substantively) updated environmental impacts would still seem to need to be documented.

          I’m not familiar with nuances of environmental law. But chances are that ST would not want to risk future litigation delays by avoiding at least a supplemental EIS if not a brand new one. It would not be the Herculean effort of a full Link extension so it probably would not need years of preparation time. The overall ST3 funding gap would probably be a bigger cause for delay than an EIS supplement would be.

    2. Getting rid of NEPA would be a godsend for transit. Like many “environmental” laws, they are more about preserving the status quo and providing layers of paper pushing job bureaucracy than preserving the actual environment.

13. Slowing down the already slow ride to SeaTac with infill stations is a complete waste of logic.

    Sound Transit strikes again! Can’t wait to see crony Dow make it great again.

    1. You’ll be slowed down 30 seconds to a minute at most. You’re making a mountain out of a molehill here.

       1. In that stretch where it’s finally not in MLK and actually picking up speed?

          You’re wrong.

          This is a gross waste of money and resources to get only negative outcomes.

       2. “You’re wrong.

          This is a gross waste of money and resources to get only negative outcomes.”
          Again, you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. It is not productive to the conversation in the slightest. You’ll live if it stops to pick up passangers for 30 seconds to a minute. You’re putting your energy in the wrong places in getting angry about a nothingburger.

       3. 30 seconds is just the dwell time. Add in acceleration and declaration time, it’s more like a minute. This is a section where the train gets going pretty fast.

          It would be one thing if the extra time to get time the airport means you get additional destinations opening up, in exchange, like at Graham. But, that’s not the case here. What’s proposed is delaying everybody on the train by a minute or to serve what will be essentially just a glorified overflow parking lot for TIBS. Conversion of TIBS parking to a multi-story garage would be bad value, but spending similar amounts of money on this is even worse, since at least the construction of a parking garage does not delay the train the way an extra station just to serve an extra parking lot would.

       4. Mark, the curve between BAR and East Marginal is not “track speed” radius. The trains slow quite a bit already, so putting a station in either location is not as harmful as putting one in the middle of an otherwise uninterrupyed 55 mph stretch.

          This may be a “chicken and egg” thing in that ST knew it had likely plans for a station just east of the curve, and made the curve tighter than it might have been otherwise.

          I do not know that this speculation is true or not.

       5. Yeah, the train is not traveling top speed. I have no idea what it takes those turns at. I think the bigger issue in general is just our overly long dwell times. If we could speed it up a few seconds at each station it would make a difference for longer trips (and have a bigger impact than whether or not this station exists).

       6. Ross, Amen to that. The delay is often the result of the “request” method that many driver-operated transit systems use.

          The problem revolves around held doors. If “the system” has full command and clears the departure signal so many seconds after the arrival of a train at the station, but the doors are being held, the train sits in the station while “the train” is supposedly rolling down the tracks, and traffic signals are cleared for it. If it lags long enough you get the craziness of the train operating on the auto pulse.

          So a “request” for clearance is issued after the doors are actually closed and the train is ready to move forward.

          Platform doors and automated operations under the control of the central TCS allows shorter dwell times, but the capital cost for the doors to limit liability, the units to automate cabs and lineside equipment is non-trivial.

14. I’ll also add another point here. In the event that Metro were to truncate the 101 or 150 (not saying it should), sending the bus to Rainier Beach station would make more sense than sending it to BAR station. Travel time on the bus between the freeway and the station would be about the same, but Rainier Beach station would at least offer relatively more in terms of walk shed and bus connections than BAR, even with a diverted route 124. Plus, sending the bus to Rainer Beach would yield a faster travel time overall to downtown Seattle by not needing to backtrack west on the bus and east again on the train (but still slower than just sending the bus downtown, like it does today).

    So, a potential bus truncation is not a good reason to justify building BAR, even if it were Metro’s intentions to eventually truncate the 101 and 150 (which it isn’t).

    1. Only reason I can see Metro truncate routes at BAR vs Rainier Beach is its a shorter turnaround to deadhead back Metro’s South Bus Base at the end of shifts, runs, or service day from an operations standpoint. But that is really only a small pro for BAR

    2. A BAR stop makes more sense for Metro Route 150 than Metro Route 101. For Route 150 it would simply require staying on East Marginal Way, and hopping on I-5 at BAR (Exit 158) rather than at East Marginal Way (Exit 156). It’s terribly out of direction for Route 101 by comparison.

       I would love to see the dollars for this go instead to a Rainier Beach Station Transit Center! It’s regrettable that this infill station is just beyond South King (Tukwila) that is funding this infill station as well as East King (Renton) which is the source of Route 101 ridership. It makes the subarea funding for such a station upgrade politically difficult.

       1. A BAR stop makes more sense for Metro Route 150 than Metro Route 101.

          Yes, but only because the station is not by the freeway and there is no freeway station. That’s the problem. A freeway station (like at Mountlake Terrace) with a nearby station would allow the 101 to stop, let riders off and then continue to downtown (as an express) . This would be similar to how the 510 stops at Mountlake Terrace while still running express between Everett and Downtown Seattle. It is theoretically still possible but unlikely. They would not only need to build the freeway station but they would need to build a very long pedestrian walkway. I measure at about 740 meters, minimum (or almost half a mile). That is over twice as far as the Mountlake Terrace Walk. It would mean at least a ten minute walk (probably more). It might work with a gondola but either way, I just don’t see it.

          If they wanted to truncate the 101 they would have truncated it already. It would connect to the Rainier Beach station and then layover by the high school. That area (by the high school, not the station) is a much bigger destination then BAR will ever be. It would be an express from Rainier Beach to Renton and greatly speed up travel between Renton and Rainier Valley (either with a transfer to the 7 or Link). They already have layover and turnaround space there. But riders of the 101 don’t want to lose their express.

          [Note: I should have read up the thread — asdf2 basically said the same thing.]

          Yes, extending the 150 is far more likely. The only drawback is that it would delay those riders. According to Google it is an extra five minutes (not counting the time spent at the additional bus stops). I’m not sure about traffic, either.

          I would love to see the dollars for this go instead to a Rainier Beach Station Transit Center!

          Rainier Beach (the neighborhood) is already a de-facto transit center. It is served by several buses, some of which layover there. What else do you want (and why)?

       2. We’ve been asking Metro to truncate the 101 ever since the 2014 cuts. Metro then said it would only do it if it couldn’t maintain the then 30-minute headways. It gave no consideration to the fact that truncation might allow it to run every 15 minutes, which would mitigate the additional 10 minutes travel time. People would rather move 5 minutes longer than wait 5 minutes longer.

          Since then the 101 has gotten 15-minute weekday daytime, due to the improving economy and equity priority.

          All of Metro’s long-range scenarios have the 101 continuing to downtown. Metro has never released an alternative truncating it. In Metro Connects 2050 it’s one of 9 unchanged routes.

          The 101 is just too far east of Link for a transfer to have minimal impact on travel time. The 101 already takes 40 minutes from Renton TC to downtown. Most of the population lives in eastern or southern Renton a transfer away, so their travel time is already approaching an hour or more. For a city that’s just fifteen miles from downtown and should have a maximum travel time of 30 minutes.

       3. “ Rainier Beach (the neighborhood) is already a de-facto transit center. It is served by several buses, some of which layover there. What else do you want (and why)?”

          The bus stop situation at Rainier Beach Station is actually rather bad. Henderson and MLK has lots of heavy traffic including many who turn. The signal makes everyone wait awhile for a green light. There isn’t a place to easily turn around buses. There are often accidents. Plus it’s next to where Chief Sealth trail crosses both MLK and Henderson.

          Maybe all it needs is some property purchase to put in a place for buses to turn around and for drivers to access the ST staff restroom already there. Maybe it could be under the high voltage wires or maybe just south of the platform with a new crosswalk signal across MLK. Maybe it could be a part of a bigger project to make it safer for pedestrians to get to the platform since it’s already been proven to be a hazardous intersection.

          I can’t say how much would be needed. Lots depends on how to add features that improve pedestrian safety in addition to adding space to lay over buses and give riders breaks. It could be upgraded as the terminus of the planned RapidRide R.

          But it’s not going to get any systemic upgrades until every agency involved agrees to create a coordinated plan first. Each agency and subarea looks at Rainier Beach from their narrow perspective without such an effort — when the station itself needs to be championed and upgraded as the hub that it should be.

       4. The bus stop situation at Rainier Beach Station is actually rather bad.

          Perhaps, but it doesn’t call for a transit center. Not there. I suppose the 7 could layover there (it will eventually) but that is about it. If the 106 is split into two branches then it would be split by Rainier Beach High School (where the people are). If we ran a bus like the one I mentioned (connecting Tukwila to Rainier Beach via BAR) then it would also terminate by the high school. Having a transit center for only one bus doesn’t make much sense.

          If you are worried about the future 7/Link connection, I get it. I could see how it would be awkward. But maybe they could find layover space on Fairbanks. Basically the bus could go along Henderson, take a left at MLK, make a stop next to the station and then layover on Fairbanks (like so: https://maps.app.goo.gl/k9yKGxVdViq4ThR17). If you are headed from the 7 to Link (e. g. Rainier Avenue to the airport) it would be close to ideal. Going the other way you would walk about 100 yards to the layover spot (unless they added a pedestrian crosswalk at Fairbanks in which case it would again be close to ideal). That would make more sense if the area around there got developed.

       5. “ I suppose the 7 could layover there (it will eventually) but that is about it… Having a transit center for only one bus doesn’t make much sense.“

          This entire thread is discussing truncating routes at Rainier Beach Station like Route 101. We’ve mentioned Route 7 (RapidRide R). That’s two (7; 101) at a minimum. Routes 106 and 107 also swing by the station.

          A major purpose of a transit center is often to have layover space so drivers can rest and have restroom access. It may only be needed for two routes. Since ST has already built restroom facilities there, why not provide a way to use them?

          It doesn’t need to be an ambitious design. It could be included as part of a larger RapidRide R design project. Still, there is pretty broad consensus that the Link station on MLK is dangerous for pedestrians using the station. So the design cost could easily be more attributable to addressing that rather than providing a place for at least two routes to lay over.

       6. This entire thread is discussing truncating routes at Rainier Beach Station like Route 101.

          Exactly. Which is why it wouldn’t layover there. The 101 would be approaching from the freeway. It would just keep going and layover by the High School. I refer to it as “the high school” but it is really the heart of the neighborhood. It is the main destination in the area. It would be silly to end about a half mile before there. This would be one of the selling points of the truncation. Riders lose their one-seat to downtown but they gain a one-seat ride to Rainier Beach (along with connections to both Link and the 7). It is worth noting that even for buses like the 106 and 107 the station doesn’t dominate. The various stops around Rainier Beach (the neighborhood) have more riders.

          Routes 106 and 107 also swing by the station.

          Yes, and they will continue to do so. Having them serve a transit center (with a loop) would be a waste of time. Are you suggesting a future split? I could see that. But it is highly unlikely the 107 would be split again. So that basically leaves the 106. That could happen. You would overlap, with one half ending by the neighborhood (where the 7 currently ends) and the other *maybe* by the station. But I could also see the southern 106 going farther, to Othello. Even with two buses I don’t see much value in a transit center. There is plenty of space for the buses to turnaround and layover. If you want to call that area a transit center, be my guest. But I don’t think it needs anything special.

       7. “Having them serve a transit center (with a loop) would be a waste of time.”

          I never said that a layover spot would require a loop. That’s all you, Ross.

          I was thinking about something more like the new “transit center” at MLK and Madison for RapidRide G. I wasn’t thinking something like what exists in Burien or Bellevue.

          So where are the restrooms for drivers at Rainier and Henderson? And if Route 101 lays over there, won’t every bus have to make a big loop to reverse direction using Seward Park Ave and Rainier? That would add several unnecessary minutes for each bus.

       8. OK, so this wouldn’t be used by the 106 or 107. It wouldn’t be used by the 101 (if it was ever sent to Rainier Beach). So the only bus that would use this “transit center” is the RapidRide R when it is finally built. How is this different then any other terminus? Just down the street the 36 lays over by Othello Station. Should it be a “transit center” too?

          At this point I’m not sure what it is your are proposing. A place to park the RapidRide R buses? Sure. But that is not a big part of the project. By itself it adds very little. We could implement the RapidRide R — with current routing — and still have the essential pieces (BAT lanes, stop diet, off-board payment). I want the extension to the station — I think it is better routing — but the issue isn’t layover space. It is already there. It is like arguing “we should spend money on paint so we can convert more buses to RapidRide”. That isn’t the issue.

       9. So where are the restrooms for drivers at Rainier and Henderson?

          I don’t know where the comfort stations are but given that the 7 lays over there, they have to be there.

          And if Route 101 lays over there, won’t every bus have to make a big loop to reverse direction using Seward Park Ave and Rainier?

          Yes, of course, just like the 7. It could do the same thing (serve riders along the loop while traveling one direction) or just make that loop without picking up anyone (until it got close to Henderson again). But there are quite a few riders who take advantage of the loop even though it only works one direction.

          But it is essential to serve Rainier Beach. Otherwise you are forcing a transfer for just about everyone. It is unfortunate that the station isn’t in a real destination (like Rainier Beach itself) but that simply isn’t the case. Rainier Beach (the neighborhood) has a high school, middle school, lots of markets, restaurants and a bunch of apartments. Sending the 101 there would provide a lot of new one-seat rides to help make up for the loss of all the one-seat rides to downtown. I’m not saying riders wouldn’t object (they most certainly would) but I’m saying it would at least offer something substantial in compensation.

       10. > So where are the restrooms for drivers at Rainier and Henderson?

           I don’t know where the comfort stations are but given that the 7 lays over there, they have to be there.

           They could just have an arrangement with the safeway grocery store

       11. They could just have an arrangement with the safeway grocery store

           Yes, that would be my guess. I would love it if we had a report on all the layover spots. I think it is an interesting issue and can influence future routing. It takes some effort to come up with a new terminus. You have to find a place to turn around. You have to have a comfort station (otherwise known as a restroom). Even using existing layovers can be problematic. For example I once came up with an idea for a route that went south on 32nd Avenue NW (where the 17 ran) and then just ended by the locks (where the 44 lays over). The problem is, it can’t make a loop that way. The 44 makes an east-west loop (https://maps.app.goo.gl/2ajDNA1MUttVf21L8). Making a north-south loop is a lot harder (https://maps.app.goo.gl/CQTWAackuY7mHWry8) — you’ve got a tighter turn. You could probably do it with a left-turn light from Locks Place to Market there, but the point is it would take more work.

           You also run into limits as far as layover space as well. But again, sometimes it just takes a little effort from the city to carve out a little more space.

15. I’d take a second SeaTac Airport station if we are talking infill stations. You could place one on the south end of the terminals. Right now the tracks run directly adjacent to the International Customs wing and are flat and straight. Obviously a station wouldn’t tie in at the customs area but could be built on the track outside and have an entry point from the drop off drive. Given the high airport ridership and that the airport is one of the main destinations for those coming from the south (once Federal Way and Tacoma extentions open), it wouldn’t be the worst thing ST could spend money on.

    If we are talking lists of misc $5-300M ST projects, I’d first take a pedestrian tunnel under Montlake Blvd from UW station to UW Medical Center & NE Pacific St (bus transfer to Eastside) bus stops. I’d like to hear this ped tunnel get more traction for future projects instead of this terrible infill station in the middle of nowhere.

16. This site choice makes a great option for Metro Employees. Currently 2 Metro bus bases and admin location can be served by this expansion with additional coming on line next year (Tukwila Base) and another planned South Annex Base. Previous this area was somewhat of an island requiring car use for commuting. With its addition staff can connect easy with downtown bases and future Eastside expansion.

17. For the love of Flying Spaghetti Monster, this project needs to be cancelled. It serves practically no one and transit expansion resources are scarce already. It’s not that this can be looked at again when things are better financially. This will simply never be needed. There is no walk shed here. Like at all. It is near some warehouses and a bit of a walk from a sparsely dense residential area. The cost is absurb for the marginal benefit. 😒

Comments are closed.